I was offered a job then turned down after I put my two weeks at my current.

Last summer I applied for then interviewed for a new job. I got a call a week later saying 'we'd like to extend you a job offer'. An email was sent to me with a formal job offer saying my start date was two weeks from then. I went to work at my current job and told the boss I'd give him two weeks.

A couple days later the HR lady at the other place called asking for my driver's license number and if they could do a background check and call my current employer. I gave it to her and she said 'you didn't quit your job yet, did you? Because this is conditional and we still have to do a background check.' Well she called a week and a half later and said, 'based on your record (I had a screw up on my driving record 2.5 years ago) we will not be able to extend you an offer.' I said, 'wow, that's an interesting way of doing things'. She said, 'well, it's our policy, maybe try back when your record is clean, can I send you some information?' I said, 'no thanks, goodbye'. I was a little miffed, but I didn't lose any sleep.

They took me back no problem at my current job, I am actually a pretty good employee, but what if they hadn't? Could the other place or the HR lady have been held responsible? She left out sort of a major thing, that the job offer was only conditional, and waited a day or so before telling me that. This is all theoretical, but I'm curious.

Did the letter say that the offer was contingent on you passing a background check/drug test/etc. ? That's fairly common langauge.

I think it does hinge on this. If at any point in the application/ interview/ hiring process they advised you of this, even as a note in the literature about their company or application for employment form, you are in effect an unwed mother -- screwed and screwed over. so to speak.

But if it was a bona fide job offer with no conditions stipulated, then the shoe is quite frankly on the other foot. They made you a job offer which you accepted and acted in reliance on. Their "company policy" may be what they'd like you to put up with, but it cannot go against the law, and even in "right to work" states there are some things they cannot do.

While the OP was fortunate in that his current employer was willing to take him back, if someone else were in that same position and was not welcomed back, I would contact HR at the company making the offer with the hidden contingency in writing, with copies to that company's legal department and the State Labor Department, along these terms:

"You made me a job offer with no 'subject to' terms stated in it, which I accepted and acted in reliance on. I feel you should act to hold me harmless from your error, as follows:

1. You will hire me on the terms stated in our previous contact. In view of the circumstances, I will expect two exceptions to company policy: (a) you will waiver the good-driving-record condition, and document this in my file; (b) any dismissal within the first year must be for cause acceptable to the State Labor Department standards. I put this requirement in place to ensure you do not meet the terms of you obligation by hiring me and then lay me off a week later. OR

2. Along with my own efforts, you will contact my current employer and convince him to retain me as an employee.

I believe that I have made myself ineligible for state unemployment by voluntarily leaving a job. I wish a formal letter, on company letterhead, from you, stating the screw-up on your part that led me to resign my current position, in hopes that they will approve unemployment for someone leaving one position in the expectation of having been offered a better one.

If you are unwilling to do (1) and unable or unwilling to do (2) and I am indeed ineligible for state unemployment, then:

3. You will pay me the sum of fifty percent of the gross wages per forty-hour week on each pay cycle for your business while I am without work, precisely as if I were drawing unemployment but paid directly by you. I will commit myself to diligently look for work and to notify you when I have begun a new job.

If none of the above options are acceptable to you, then I will be contacting both the State Labor Department's Legal Affairs Office and a lawyer willing to work on a contingency basis. I trust it will not need to come to that extreme.

The poster above uses the word Reliance. This is a recognized Cause of Action in some states, that is, Detrimental Reliance, sometimes known as or a seperate tort of Promissory Estoppel. The state dep. of labor has no jurisdiction though.

Be advised though, even if it is a recognized tort in a state, the specific case law controls, DR may cover certain facts. For example, I move, at my expense, and put out 2 grand to relocate for my new job. When I arrive, the offer was rescinded. It is possible a COA exisits, possibly not? An Employment/Labor Lawyer would need to be consulted.

If you don't mind, what kind of job is this? Is it something where you have to drive as a primary part of your duties? Because otherwise, being declined a job due to a moving violation a couple years ago seems incredibly strict and unnecessary.

One place I worked at, the HR people generally were the type "I'm tired of being a secretary/timekeeper/foreman/purchasing agent. Can I try something different?" Since the only position they valued was formally qualified engineer, they saw nothing wrong with filling such positions with woefully incompetent and untrained people. The head of HR for many years was an engineer moved sideways because his management skills were destroying the engineering department, so badly even the management there could not ignore it. As a result, situations like this were common. The only reason they got away with it (usually) was because if anyone wanted to work for them eventually - the best game in town - they didn't rock the boat.

This may be the case here. You have an department basically ignorant of the technicalities of the law, going through the motions. In most cases, as will likely happen with yours, there are no consqeuences to them.

I too am curious whether there really is a need for a good driving record, or if they have a mindless policy of any blemish is an excuse to deny the job. (OTOH, a DUI for example is typpically a criminal offense not a moving violation...)

If you don't mind, what kind of job is this? Is it something where you have to drive as a primary part of your duties? Because otherwise, being declined a job due to a moving violation a couple years ago seems incredibly strict and unnecessary.

NO! No driving whatsoever in this job. That's the real head scratcher in this situation.

Interesting answers coming from you guys. I almost wonder what would've happened if I had started screwing with this woman and told her my old job would not take me back. "But you didn't say this was a contingent offer until after I quit my job!" Would've been interesting.

One place I worked at, the HR people generally were the type "I'm tired of being a secretary/timekeeper/foreman/purchasing agent. Can I try something different?" Since the only position they valued was formally qualified engineer, they saw nothing wrong with filling such positions with woefully incompetent and untrained people. The head of HR for many years was an engineer moved sideways because his management skills were destroying the engineering department, so badly even the management there could not ignore it. As a result, situations like this were common. The only reason they got away with it (usually) was because if anyone wanted to work for them eventually - the best game in town - they didn't rock the boat.

This may be the case here. You have an department basically ignorant of the technicalities of the law, going through the motions. In most cases, as will likely happen with yours, there are no consqeuences to them.

I too am curious whether there really is a need for a good driving record, or if they have a mindless policy of any blemish is an excuse to deny the job. (OTOH, a DUI for example is typpically a criminal offense not a moving violation...)

Ya know, the place I work at currently and another place I worked at during college was the same way. People got bored with doing their jobs so they created a position for them, put them in the most random position they could come up with whether it had anything to do with their original job or not.

One place I worked at, the HR people generally were the type "I'm tired of being a secretary/timekeeper/foreman/purchasing agent. Can I try something different?" Since the only position they valued was formally qualified engineer, they saw nothing wrong with filling such positions with woefully incompetent and untrained people. The head of HR for many years was an engineer moved sideways because his management skills were destroying the engineering department, so badly even the management there could not ignore it. As a result, situations like this were common. The only reason they got away with it (usually) was because if anyone wanted to work for them eventually - the best game in town - they didn't rock the boat.

This may be the case here. You have an department basically ignorant of the technicalities of the law, going through the motions. In most cases, as will likely happen with yours, there are no consqeuences to them.

I too am curious whether there really is a need for a good driving record, or if they have a mindless policy of any blemish is an excuse to deny the job. (OTOH, a DUI for example is typpically a criminal offense not a moving violation...)

Most company's HR people are not professionals in the department. For one reason or the other they have moved into HR from another department with no training, if the department head is professional then they will trane new members of their department.
Look at most newspaper ads. Any employeer who wants qualified people to apply include information about the job. Quallifications & experieince, union or non union. And the ad should also contain salary range, benifits, shifts times.
When I worked for the Emporium Stores an ad for a Maintenance Engineer would only contain job title, requirements and nothing about benifits, wages, or job description. We would get people who only had maintenance cleaning experience and changing lights. About the $10 an hour experieince. The qualified engineers would see the add and think retail store they are only going to be paying lw wages and would not apply.
When I was looking for work I would not go on an interview until I knew the pay range. I had one HR person call me wanting me to come in for an interview. She was all excited about interviewing me after reading my interview. But she did not want to name a pay range. After insisting she told me with my experience it would be in the $2200 per month range. My resume stated my current pay at the time $31.60/hr and I would be giving up a $20,000 severance package if I quit before the stores closed. She expected me to take a day off without pay for an interview that I would not take.

One hospital that I interviewed in HR did not even know that there was going to be an opening in the engineering department, one of the guys was retiring within the month. They did not want to calll the Chief Engineer so I could go to the scheduled interview.

I have more stories but lets not. But I would not be suprised at anything that HR would do.

I think it does hinge on this. If at any point in the application/ interview/ hiring process they advised you of this, even as a note in the literature about their company or application for employment form, you are in effect an unwed mother -- screwed and screwed over. so to speak.

But if it was a bona fide job offer with no conditions stipulated, then the shoe is quite frankly on the other foot. They made you a job offer which you accepted and acted in reliance on. Their "company policy" may be what they'd like you to put up with, but it cannot go against the law, and even in "right to work" states there are some things they cannot do.

While the OP was fortunate in that his current employer was willing to take him back, if someone else were in that same position and was not welcomed back, I would contact HR at the company making the offer with the hidden contingency in writing, with copies to that company's legal department and the State Labor Department, along these terms:

"You made me a job offer with no 'subject to' terms stated in it, which I accepted and acted in reliance on. I feel you should act to hold me harmless from your error, as follows:

1. You will hire me on the terms stated in our previous contact. In view of the circumstances, I will expect two exceptions to company policy: (a) you will waiver the good-driving-record condition, and document this in my file; (b) any dismissal within the first year must be for cause acceptable to the State Labor Department standards. I put this requirement in place to ensure you do not meet the terms of you obligation by hiring me and then lay me off a week later. OR

2. Along with my own efforts, you will contact my current employer and convince him to retain me as an employee.

I believe that I have made myself ineligible for state unemployment by voluntarily leaving a job. I wish a formal letter, on company letterhead, from you, stating the screw-up on your part that led me to resign my current position, in hopes that they will approve unemployment for someone leaving one position in the expectation of having been offered a better one.

If you are unwilling to do (1) and unable or unwilling to do (2) and I am indeed ineligible for state unemployment, then:

3. You will pay me the sum of fifty percent of the gross wages per forty-hour week on each pay cycle for your business while I am without work, precisely as if I were drawing unemployment but paid directly by you. I will commit myself to diligently look for work and to notify you when I have begun a new job.

If none of the above options are acceptable to you, then I will be contacting both the State Labor Department's Legal Affairs Office and a lawyer willing to work on a contingency basis. I trust it will not need to come to that extreme.

Sincerely, yada yada

I'm not a lawyer or familiar with employment law in any state aside from my own (and I'm only familiar with it here because I have to be, and would consult a real lawyer in the case of actual legal action), but pretty much nothing in your post would be something the OP would be entitled to in a hypothetical scenario in which his previous job didn't take him back.

Maybe some States are different, but here at least you can rescind a job offer for any reason that isn't discriminatory and that doesn't violate specific statutory law.

Some employers might offer some job search assistance or even compensation as an act of good will, but at least in my State none of this is covered under the purview of the State Department of Labor. Meaning if you actually wanted to force the employer to do any of the things outlined in your post you would be required to file suit against them in civil court.

Not a professional legal type cite but this article does cite an employment lawyer who basically says the same thing: link. What the employment lawyer in that article says is:

Quote:

In certain unusual circumstances, there is a principle called 'detrimental reliance,' where you can sue the employer because you relied on its promise of a job," Moore notes. "But in order to win in most states, you would have to prove somehow that the company deliberately misled you and the job offer was fraudulent or not in good faith. If you can't prove that, you'd just be throwing money away on a lawsuit.

A professional attorney could probably do a search on Lexis-Nexis or (if they were personally experienced in the area) tell you about the likelihood of success in these suits.

NO! No driving whatsoever in this job. That's the real head scratcher in this situation.

Interesting answers coming from you guys. I almost wonder what would've happened if I had started screwing with this woman and told her my old job would not take me back. "But you didn't say this was a contingent offer until after I quit my job!" Would've been interesting.

It was likely really something else (unless the traffic violation was DUI?). Some companies are weird, they won't tell you the real reason. It's quite possible you put something on your resume that either you thought was legit or really was legit but they couldn't verify. For example, in my case, I have a masters. On my job app there were lines for various colleges, including a space for "degree or degree program". Now, I then listed my Community college with "Zoology" in that space. Indeed that was my "degree program" but I never bothered getting my AA as I went on to get a higher degree. Still, they almost fired me over "lying" on my job application.

My Bro worked for the Fed for 20 years, then retired. He applied for a job at a bank. Well, they used the toll-free Employment Verification number that the OPM puts out, and by some bureaucratic error, my Bro's SSN wasn't there. This time they told him, and of course he had the paperwork to prove he'd been retired after 20 years. But two jobs before that simply didn;t hire him, even after he passed all the interviews, etc.

In other words, HR depts take a unholy glee in not hiring qualified candidates for silly fucking reasons. In both these cases, certainly a question could have been asked and it all cleared up. But in 3 out of 4 cases, even when it would be common sense to see there's no "lying" going on and simply ask the applicant for some documentation, they didn;t bother.

In my case, "HR" actually had started the firing process, but upper management overruled them. Interestingly it wasn't that it doesn;t fucking matter whether or not you have a AA when you have a MS, it was that the box/question was "unclear".

27, I am citing this NE case because I remembered it from a legal Q@A board I used to post on. An employment relationship can be loosely refered to as a contract, even one at will. Therefore an "implied contract" can be assumed to alter the at will status.

Some states I remember recognize an iimplied contract theory as well as what is known as "good faith and fair dealing", as New Hampshire does, that I remember from past study, Monge v Bebee Rubber.

This case deals with, as stated within, a Promissory Estoppel claim and later mentions a Reliance upon an employment implied contract.

Now, this case deals with an implied continuation of employment by a company where the employee turned down another job offer, then the so called implied contract was rescinded. Your facts are slightly different, but the legal import is basically the same.

My state ohio, recognizes a Promissory Estopple exception, as well as a Public Policy exception, but NOT a covenant as NH permits.

I was accepted for employment many years ago in much the same way. I was instructed that I would be on the payroll in 14 days and should give my present employer notice.
I did and 14 days went by and no information from new employer. I called the HR dept. and the dude said, o ya, I was meaning to get back to you but we cannot hire you as you didn't pass your physical. WHAT, i had passed a physical for my current job and was only 2 years out of the Army. Well this was a Class "B" back thing and it was only a precautionary thing for the company. That company was sued a few years latter but I never joined in the class action.
I was very fortunate like you to be able to continue at my current job until I got another (Honest) job offer 3 months later.
A word in support to staying the full 14 day notice!
When my daughter changed jobs 6 months ago she gave the 2 week notice and on the last day she was told how much they appreciated her keeping true to the notice, as there seems to be a trend in not honoring a notice given anymore.

I'm not a lawyer or familiar with employment law in any state aside from my own (and I'm only familiar with it here because I have to be, and would consult a real lawyer in the case of actual legal action), but pretty much nothing in your post would be something the OP would be entitled to in a hypothetical scenario in which his previous job didn't take him back.

Maybe some States are different, but here at least you can rescind a job offer for any reason that isn't discriminatory and that doesn't violate specific statutory law.

Some employers might offer some job search assistance or even compensation as an act of good will, but at least in my State none of this is covered under the purview of the State Department of Labor. Meaning if you actually wanted to force the employer to do any of the things outlined in your post you would be required to file suit against them in civil court.

Not a professional legal type cite but this article does cite an employment lawyer who basically says the same thing: link. What the employment lawyer in that article says is:

A professional attorney could probably do a search on Lexis-Nexis or (if they were personally experienced in the area) tell you about the likelihood of success in these suits.

I'm torn between you and Polycarp as you both make excellent points. At least in this state, there is no duty of good faith and fair dealing in an employment contract. Therefore, they could extend an offer and decide to fire you in the next ten minutes for any or no reason.

However, by having the documentation that they didn't hire you in the first place after promising to do so because you didn't pass a background check that they didn't tell you that you had to pass seems to be a violation of the promise of the original offer and not a subsequent violation of a fair dealing duty. I would very much like to try to make a case for promissory estoppel, or even straight breach of contract (there was offer, acceptance, and consideration).

I'm sure that it is very state and fact specific. Those words about a background check would imply that you had to pass it, but a 2 1/2 year old infraction when driving isn't part of the job? Interesting fact set, though.

It's my guess that the 'screw up on the driving record" was a DUI, and that is why the offer was rescinded.
If I am correct, kwc27 may also have filled out an application which asked for felony convictions. The way he phrased his screw up makes me think it was a DUI, and consequently, makes me think he may have not answered the felony conviction question honestly. Grounds for withdrawal of offer/termination.
And, if that is the case, how the job offer was extended is irrelevent, IMHO.
Just my suspicion.

I almost wonder what would've happened if I had started screwing with this woman and told her my old job would not take me back. "But you didn't say this was a contingent offer until after I quit my job!" Would've been interesting.

I think this is all kind of moot. It doesn't sound, from what you've written, like you even kept the letter they sent you, (you were guessing at the exact wording, up thread!) In which case, no matter how egregious their errors or missteps, even if criminal, you have no recourse anyway, without the letter. Do you know the name of the person who sent it to you? Do you know the name of whom you spoke with?

I realize you're only after hypothetical conjecture, but if you didn't bother to document anything, you're screwed regardless, aren't you?

Yes, I was reading about the Nexus "expresss pass" for the Canada-USA border. The Americans will deny your request if you had a pot posession or shoplifting charge 30 years ago. The Canadians don't care. The Canadians will deny your application if you have ever had a DUI (since it's considered a criminal conviction in Canada) but the Americans don't care.

It's my guess that the 'screw up on the driving record" was a DUI, and that is why the offer was rescinded.
If I am correct, kwc27 may also have filled out an application which asked for felony convictions. The way he phrased his screw up makes me think it was a DUI, and consequently, makes me think he may have not answered the felony conviction question honestly. Grounds for withdrawal of offer/termination.
And, if that is the case, how the job offer was extended is irrelevent, IMHO.
Just my suspicion.

You are correct, but a DUI is not a felony in this state. A third DUI is, which I do not have. I've got a misdemeanor. I answered every question truthfully.

You are correct, but a DUI is not a felony in this state. A third DUI is, which I do not have. I've got a misdemeanor. I answered every question truthfully.

Really? Most job applications I've seen ask about convictions, with the explicit exception of traffic violations - offenses a step below misdemeanors. A misdemeanor conviction is a pretty significant deal; employers generally want to know about it.

Nothing to add except to say that this is more common than most people realize.

At an old job a hiring mamager I know was told his budget was cut and he would not be able to take on the three people he was hiring. He was told this on the first day they were to start, about 30 minutes before they were scheduled to show up for orientation. He had no choice but to meet each one of them at the front door, thell them there was no job and that they were not permitted to enter the building.

He (the hiring mamager) was devestated at being put in this position. He really was a good guy and felt betrayed by the company and terrible at the damage this would do to these three people. I don't think he managed to get over it - he left shortly after.

Really? Most job applications I've seen ask about convictions, with the explicit exception of traffic violations - offenses a step below misdemeanors. A misdemeanor conviction is a pretty significant deal; employers generally want to know about it.

Within the last 10 years, have you been convicted of a felony? (Conviction of a crime does
not necessarily disqualify you from employment.)
Yes No
If yes, (if the answer is yes, it does not necessarily disqualify you), explain the nature of the offense and the
date:

Within the last 10 years, have you been convicted of a felony? (Conviction of a crime does
not necessarily disqualify you from employment.)
Yes No
If yes, (if the answer is yes, it does not necessarily disqualify you), explain the nature of the offense and the
date:

You are correct, but a DUI is not a felony in this state. A third DUI is, which I do not have. I've got a misdemeanor. I answered every question truthfully.

Hmmm...I'm even more curious now. did you mention the DUI on your application? Because, felony or misdemeanor, I'd rather suspect that a DUI isn't considered 'just a driving record" issue. I would guess it's more like an assault, isn't it? Were you arrested, or just given a ticket?
Could be wrong, tho.

Within the last 10 years, have you been convicted of a felony? (Conviction of a crime does
not necessarily disqualify you from employment.)
Yes No
If yes, (if the answer is yes, it does not necessarily disqualify you), explain the nature of the offense and the
date:

I had something similar once. I got a job that had the same question as above. I had been charged with DUI, 4 years prior, but the charge was dismissed. I got the job, but a couple of weeks later the boss called me in his office and said he was upset that I wasn't candid with them, but they would let me keep the job.

I told them that I answered the question honestly, and that if they wanted to know about an arrest without a conviction, they needed to ask. I'm not going to volunteer every time that I didn't listen to my 2nd grade teacher.

He said that was fine, but "in the future" to "err on the side of caution" and "disclose everything."

Disclose where? Say no, I've not been convicted of a felony, but I was arrested for a misdemeanor that was later dismissed? Who answers a question that way?

The point is that these hiring managers aren't lawyers and when they pull shitty questions off of an internet form template, they blame you for not giving the answer to the question they wanted to ask.

Yeah, I've seen enough online application forms, paper applications and etc that I don't think there is a true standard. Common ones I've seen:

"Have you ever been convicted or charged with a crime?" - Pretty much a catch all that covers any criminal conviction or any arrest including misdemeanors. Sometimes seen with the qualifier "other than minor traffic violations."

"Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"

"Have you been convicted of a felony in the past X years?"

"Have you been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor in the past X years?"

I've also seen a formal job application that only asked "Have you ever been convicted or charged with a felony?" But in the second round of the hiring process, you had to fill out a background check consent form and a DMV record release consent form (so they could view your DMV record.) The DMV record form also asked that you disclose upfront any issues on your driving record so for that job in the second round of hiring you would need to disclose a DUI upfront or most likely not receive the job offer.